There is no god or gods!

[Darkstar]

I am not sure I understand you here. How does the fact that 2+2=4 at all places and at all times prove physics is false? Numbers are not physical things and so are beyond physics even though physical laws still apply to physical things.

and

If a contradiction is not a thing (as it most certainly is not), then not being able to do it is not a thing God cannot do. Thus, not being able to do contradictions does not negate omnipotence (the ability to do anything).

Okay, I understand what you mean now.

I know of instances of apparent contradictions in Scripture, but no necessary ones. Certainly, I can see how you can fair mindedly call them contradictions though. Anyhow, I deny God commits contradictions by reason. I'm Catholic after all. We also believe in the holy book of nature and reason and deny Sola Scriptura as heresy. Thus I interpret scripture in light of Tradition, Magisterium, reason, and science.

Nevertheless, though perhaps an interesting criticism for certain believers of the Christian god, this is somewhat off my point. I am talking about God in the generic natural theology sense, not Christian specifically (even if that is the right interpretation ).

If that is the case then my assumption of a generic, omnipotent, but otherwise undefined god would be correct (as in that is what your argument was supporting). That would also fit with the idea that god is unknowable. I'll tailor my argument towards a more deistic god, then.

You will find some fundamentalists who will give you a falsifiable version of a god and to who this god-of-the-gaps criticism is somewhat applicable (typically the ones who think evolution and God are incompatible, etc). However, as to God of natural theology in general, you are right.

The thing I find most elling is that the fundamentalists, the ones most religious, are the ones with the flimsiest defenses for god. The more you claim to know about god, the more you have to provide in evidence to support that interpretation. The only god position that I believe is even vaguely defendable is the deistic one because it does not have any supernatural claims to disprove, or any scripture to contradict itself. The problem with scripture is that it teaches moral lessons that were applicable in the day, but which might be appauling now.

According to what I have argued so far, some may conclude, like Spinoza, that the universe is the infinite being (though this has some logical problems). Assuming the universe is creation though, then it is finite, at least in the way of Cantor's transfinites. That is, it might be infinite in kind but not absolutely. It is lacking/limited in some ways. Thus, if we hold the principle of sufficient reason (basically the principle that reason applies to all things), we need assume a sufficient reason for it (we wouldn't if it were completely infinite). God, however, being infinite, is a sufficient explanation for Himself. Of course being infinite means being eternal, so there is no coming into existence or instantaneously appearing for Him either.

(bolding + italics mine)
If we assume that god exists, that he is infinite, and that the universe cannot be infinite, while he can, then he explains himself. However, as I said before, if we consider the possibility that god was invented and arbitrariky defined as infinite, then this would be circular reasoning. If someone who had not been told about god were asked to examine the evidence, it is unlikely that they would conclude an infinite sentience as the cause of the universe. The problem is that if we assume that god exists, and is infinite, even without evidence for such, then we can say that he is infinite and doesn't need an explanation. I do no believe that you have given any proof that the universe cannot be infinite other than your assumption that if it were created by a god then it would be finite.

Fortunately the natural sciences (in very recent years; thanks to a Catholic priest) have 'proven' to us that the universe is 14 billion+ years old, not eternal. Everything empirical points to a start point, disproving the quasi-atheistic 'atheism-of-the-gaps' theory of the static universe. As far as the cause of the universe goes, atheism-of-the-gaps can at least still seek a refuge there in the closing gaps and speculate the cause was non-theistic or try and criticize the science of the big bang (which is pretty solid by this point).

Indeed, the universe former is 14 billion+ years old. However, I am referring to the universe former, not matter itself. How can anything be eternal? Wouldn't an infinite amount of time have had to have passed to reach this point? Wouldn't it then be impossible to be here? I make an important destinction between the singularity and the universe former. The singularity could have existed for eons before the big bang. If we define the singularity as infinite, then the universe explains itself. However, we have no proof for this, like we have no proof for an infinite creator. In fact, if we do not assume that an infinite creator exists, then there is no evidence for him. If we assume that he does, we can make him justify himself by defining him in a way that does so.

Also, the god of christianity is not actually all powerful (and definitely not loving) despite what people say.

Genesis 22:12 “Do not lay a hand on the boy,” he said. “Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son.”

(bolding mine) In other words, he didn't know before. Therefore he is not omniscent. Therefore he is not infinite.